You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@xml.apache.org by Brett McLaughlin <ne...@gte.net> on 2000/04/28 00:09:52 UTC
JDOM - moving to jdom-interest@jdom.org
Arnaud-
I hope we can both agree to move this discussion to
jdom-interest@jdom.org from now on - I am sure lots of people are tired
of hearing us already ;-)
>
> So, if the DOM is "ridiculously complex", JDOM appears to be
> ridiculously simple... Sorry, I couldn't resist. ;-)
This is sort of the crux of your comments - I address other comments
individually later on. But this is for the readers who just want to
read a paragraph and click 'Next' ;-)
I understand that DOM is, in a sense, your "baby," as you are both
co-editor of the DOM spec and co-chair of the XML Working Group, and
that you are very involved at the W3C. Could it be possible that you
are being a bit biased? I suggest this because you seem to imply that
there is an either-or relationship between DOM and JDOM. In fact, we go
to great pains to make sure that you can go from DOM or SAX to JDOM, and
from JDOM to DOM or SAX. This, if anything, indicates we are /very/
committed to standards. We just feel that if you have standard input
and output, why whould all the stuff "in the middle" give you such a
headache when, in many cases, it doesn't have to? We are offering Java
developers an alternative. Certainly as you know, the users will
dictate what is used much more than you or I, right? ;-) I hope you
will give JDOM the chance that people have given DOM, and where it
works, admit that. Certainly I am willing to admit where your API does
things that ours doesn't, and point users to you... thanks... my other
comments are below.
> Hi all,
>
> While I unfortunately missed the presentation last night, I had a look
> at JDOM. I must say that while it is definitely simpler, it can hardly
> compare to the DOM.
> I'll be the first one to say that the DOM is far from being the cleanest
> and leanest API one could dream of but, unlike JDOM, at least it
> truthfully represents XML.
It sounds like there may have been a misunderstanding. As JDOM is so
new, this is something that tends to happen with exciting products,
especially in the Java and XML arena, where things move so fast. JDOM
is not intended to be a 100% accurate representation of XML. Instead,
it is an API specifically for Java developers, and even further, aimed
at Java developers who are perhaps not XML gurus, per say. While
certainly there are things that you, or I, or other XML-ites may look at
and say "Well, that's not technically correct," these same items are
often the reason that so many developers are so concerned about using
XML, and have such a hard time.
We are very honest about the fact that we seek to solve 80% of the
problems of Java and XML, not 100%. Additionally, we are very clear
when we deviate. In fact, in addition to the numerous documentation and
slides where we lay this out, we are adding a FAQ section; this means
there are three clearly marked places. Honestly, if you read the docs
at all, you can't miss it ;-) You might want to hop onto
jdom-interest@jdom.org now, as we are discussing some of these features,
and if the goal of "100% accuracy" is worth the price paid for it (re:
DOM, which we both know, for reasons that are legitimate, is a heavy
API). In some cases, we believe it is not, such as the PI placement
within a document.
However, I want to be clear to you and others that we have not and do
not seek to conceal this; I was a bit put off by your implication that
we were being misleading, as all of our press and docs are very clear
that our goal is usability, and intuitiveness, not to be a replacement
for DOM and SAX in every situation, always.
>
> The way namespaces are handled show a clear misunderstanding of the
> basics of XML namespaces and, unless a serious redesign is undertaken,
> it will only work for simple cases.
This is also a bit strong of a statement, I think. I just finished
authoring the O'Reilly book, "Java and XML", and feel I am pretty strong
in the XML world ;-) There is a difference in simplifying something
(intentionally) to help out the common Java developer, as opposed to not
understanding something at all. Additionally, we actually removed the
support for scoped namespaces, and it only took about 30 minutes ;-) So
it's not that big a change at all. I hope you'll join us on
jdom-interest to find out more about our direction!
-Brett
Re: JDOM - moving to jdom-interest@jdom.org
Posted by James Duncan Davidson <Ja...@eng.sun.com>.
On Tue, 2 May 2000, Gerard van Enk wrote:
> Any ideas if it's ever gonna be HTTP/1.1 compliant?
I know that some people would like it to be. And of course if you want
to see it happen, talk about it on tomcat-dev. Write code. Ya know, open
source kinda stuff.. :)
--
james.davidson@sun.com
Re: JDOM - moving to jdom-interest@jdom.org
Posted by Gerard van Enk <ge...@eo.nl>.
James Duncan Davidson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Ben Laurie wrote:
> > Jason Hunter wrote:
> > > If scoped namespaces can be handled efficiently, they'll be included.
> > > If handling scoped namespaces is extremely onerous and slow, then they
> > > may not be included, at least by default. It wouldn't be unprecedented;
> > > I'm strongly suspect the Apache server has a few places where they
> > > violate the HTTP spec for the sake of speed. I *know* Tomcat does.
> >
> > No way. Roy would have our guts for garters if we did that!
> >
> > My understanding is that Tomcat is not intended to run standalone except
> > for testing, so standards compliance is not so important.
>
> Pretty much. It violates the standard primarily because it was put
> together in a quicky hack one night and it was fully intended for it to
> get ripped out and replaced by something that was HTTP/1.1 compliant. It
> didn't happen before it went public, and the rest is an open book.
Any ideas if it's ever gonna be HTTP/1.1 compliant?
Gerard
Re: JDOM - moving to jdom-interest@jdom.org
Posted by James Duncan Davidson <Ja...@eng.sun.com>.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Ben Laurie wrote:
> Jason Hunter wrote:
> > If scoped namespaces can be handled efficiently, they'll be included.
> > If handling scoped namespaces is extremely onerous and slow, then they
> > may not be included, at least by default. It wouldn't be unprecedented;
> > I'm strongly suspect the Apache server has a few places where they
> > violate the HTTP spec for the sake of speed. I *know* Tomcat does.
>
> No way. Roy would have our guts for garters if we did that!
>
> My understanding is that Tomcat is not intended to run standalone except
> for testing, so standards compliance is not so important.
Pretty much. It violates the standard primarily because it was put
together in a quicky hack one night and it was fully intended for it to
get ripped out and replaced by something that was HTTP/1.1 compliant. It
didn't happen before it went public, and the rest is an open book.
--
james.davidson@sun.com
Re: JDOM - moving to jdom-interest@jdom.org
Posted by James Duncan Davidson <Ja...@eng.sun.com>.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Ben Laurie wrote:
> Jason Hunter wrote:
> > If scoped namespaces can be handled efficiently, they'll be included.
> > If handling scoped namespaces is extremely onerous and slow, then they
> > may not be included, at least by default. It wouldn't be unprecedented;
> > I'm strongly suspect the Apache server has a few places where they
> > violate the HTTP spec for the sake of speed. I *know* Tomcat does.
>
> No way. Roy would have our guts for garters if we did that!
>
> My understanding is that Tomcat is not intended to run standalone except
> for testing, so standards compliance is not so important.
Pretty much. It violates the standard primarily because it was put
together in a quicky hack one night and it was fully intended for it to
get ripped out and replaced by something that was HTTP/1.1 compliant. It
didn't happen before it went public, and the rest is an open book.
--
james.davidson@sun.com
Re: JDOM - moving to jdom-interest@jdom.org
Posted by James Duncan Davidson <Ja...@eng.sun.com>.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Ben Laurie wrote:
> Jason Hunter wrote:
> > If scoped namespaces can be handled efficiently, they'll be included.
> > If handling scoped namespaces is extremely onerous and slow, then they
> > may not be included, at least by default. It wouldn't be unprecedented;
> > I'm strongly suspect the Apache server has a few places where they
> > violate the HTTP spec for the sake of speed. I *know* Tomcat does.
>
> No way. Roy would have our guts for garters if we did that!
>
> My understanding is that Tomcat is not intended to run standalone except
> for testing, so standards compliance is not so important.
Pretty much. It violates the standard primarily because it was put
together in a quicky hack one night and it was fully intended for it to
get ripped out and replaced by something that was HTTP/1.1 compliant. It
didn't happen before it went public, and the rest is an open book.
--
james.davidson@sun.com
Re: JDOM - moving to jdom-interest@jdom.org
Posted by James Duncan Davidson <Ja...@eng.sun.com>.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Ben Laurie wrote:
> Jason Hunter wrote:
> > If scoped namespaces can be handled efficiently, they'll be included.
> > If handling scoped namespaces is extremely onerous and slow, then they
> > may not be included, at least by default. It wouldn't be unprecedented;
> > I'm strongly suspect the Apache server has a few places where they
> > violate the HTTP spec for the sake of speed. I *know* Tomcat does.
>
> No way. Roy would have our guts for garters if we did that!
>
> My understanding is that Tomcat is not intended to run standalone except
> for testing, so standards compliance is not so important.
Pretty much. It violates the standard primarily because it was put
together in a quicky hack one night and it was fully intended for it to
get ripped out and replaced by something that was HTTP/1.1 compliant. It
didn't happen before it went public, and the rest is an open book.
--
james.davidson@sun.com
Re: JDOM - moving to jdom-interest@jdom.org
Posted by Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>.
Jason Hunter wrote:
> If scoped namespaces can be handled efficiently, they'll be included.
> If handling scoped namespaces is extremely onerous and slow, then they
> may not be included, at least by default. It wouldn't be unprecedented;
> I'm strongly suspect the Apache server has a few places where they
> violate the HTTP spec for the sake of speed. I *know* Tomcat does.
No way. Roy would have our guts for garters if we did that!
My understanding is that Tomcat is not intended to run standalone except
for testing, so standards compliance is not so important.
Seriously, we never violate the spec for the sake of speed. Speed is
secondary.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
Re: JDOM - moving to jdom-interest@jdom.org
Posted by Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>.
Jason Hunter wrote:
> If scoped namespaces can be handled efficiently, they'll be included.
> If handling scoped namespaces is extremely onerous and slow, then they
> may not be included, at least by default. It wouldn't be unprecedented;
> I'm strongly suspect the Apache server has a few places where they
> violate the HTTP spec for the sake of speed. I *know* Tomcat does.
No way. Roy would have our guts for garters if we did that!
My understanding is that Tomcat is not intended to run standalone except
for testing, so standards compliance is not so important.
Seriously, we never violate the spec for the sake of speed. Speed is
secondary.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
Re: JDOM - moving to jdom-interest@jdom.org
Posted by Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>.
Jason Hunter wrote:
> If scoped namespaces can be handled efficiently, they'll be included.
> If handling scoped namespaces is extremely onerous and slow, then they
> may not be included, at least by default. It wouldn't be unprecedented;
> I'm strongly suspect the Apache server has a few places where they
> violate the HTTP spec for the sake of speed. I *know* Tomcat does.
No way. Roy would have our guts for garters if we did that!
My understanding is that Tomcat is not intended to run standalone except
for testing, so standards compliance is not so important.
Seriously, we never violate the spec for the sake of speed. Speed is
secondary.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
Re: JDOM - moving to jdom-interest@jdom.org
Posted by Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>.
Jason Hunter wrote:
> If scoped namespaces can be handled efficiently, they'll be included.
> If handling scoped namespaces is extremely onerous and slow, then they
> may not be included, at least by default. It wouldn't be unprecedented;
> I'm strongly suspect the Apache server has a few places where they
> violate the HTTP spec for the sake of speed. I *know* Tomcat does.
No way. Roy would have our guts for garters if we did that!
My understanding is that Tomcat is not intended to run standalone except
for testing, so standards compliance is not so important.
Seriously, we never violate the spec for the sake of speed. Speed is
secondary.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
Re: JDOM - moving to jdom-interest@jdom.org
Posted by Jason Hunter <jh...@acm.org>.
Mike Pogue wrote:
>
> If it doesn't do namespaces the way the XML spec says to do them, then
> it's not really compliant with the XML spec either.
Suggestions for how to efficiently add scoped namespace support to
JDOM are being discussed on jdom-interest. You can subscribe at
http://jdom.org/involved/lists.html.
> You can invent your own interpretation of namespaces, but then it's
> not really XML at all, it's something else! :-)
If scoped namespaces can be handled efficiently, they'll be included.
If handling scoped namespaces is extremely onerous and slow, then they
may not be included, at least by default. It wouldn't be unprecedented;
I'm strongly suspect the Apache server has a few places where they
violate the HTTP spec for the sake of speed. I *know* Tomcat does.
> It will be interesting to see how the JDOM API evolves over time!
It's been a fun first day. :-)
-jh-
Re: JDOM - moving to jdom-interest@jdom.org
Posted by Jason Hunter <jh...@acm.org>.
Mike Pogue wrote:
>
> If it doesn't do namespaces the way the XML spec says to do them, then
> it's not really compliant with the XML spec either.
Suggestions for how to efficiently add scoped namespace support to
JDOM are being discussed on jdom-interest. You can subscribe at
http://jdom.org/involved/lists.html.
> You can invent your own interpretation of namespaces, but then it's
> not really XML at all, it's something else! :-)
If scoped namespaces can be handled efficiently, they'll be included.
If handling scoped namespaces is extremely onerous and slow, then they
may not be included, at least by default. It wouldn't be unprecedented;
I'm strongly suspect the Apache server has a few places where they
violate the HTTP spec for the sake of speed. I *know* Tomcat does.
> It will be interesting to see how the JDOM API evolves over time!
It's been a fun first day. :-)
-jh-
Re: JDOM - moving to jdom-interest@jdom.org
Posted by Jason Hunter <jh...@acm.org>.
Mike Pogue wrote:
>
> If it doesn't do namespaces the way the XML spec says to do them, then
> it's not really compliant with the XML spec either.
Suggestions for how to efficiently add scoped namespace support to
JDOM are being discussed on jdom-interest. You can subscribe at
http://jdom.org/involved/lists.html.
> You can invent your own interpretation of namespaces, but then it's
> not really XML at all, it's something else! :-)
If scoped namespaces can be handled efficiently, they'll be included.
If handling scoped namespaces is extremely onerous and slow, then they
may not be included, at least by default. It wouldn't be unprecedented;
I'm strongly suspect the Apache server has a few places where they
violate the HTTP spec for the sake of speed. I *know* Tomcat does.
> It will be interesting to see how the JDOM API evolves over time!
It's been a fun first day. :-)
-jh-
Re: JDOM - moving to jdom-interest@jdom.org
Posted by Jason Hunter <jh...@acm.org>.
Mike Pogue wrote:
>
> If it doesn't do namespaces the way the XML spec says to do them, then
> it's not really compliant with the XML spec either.
Suggestions for how to efficiently add scoped namespace support to
JDOM are being discussed on jdom-interest. You can subscribe at
http://jdom.org/involved/lists.html.
> You can invent your own interpretation of namespaces, but then it's
> not really XML at all, it's something else! :-)
If scoped namespaces can be handled efficiently, they'll be included.
If handling scoped namespaces is extremely onerous and slow, then they
may not be included, at least by default. It wouldn't be unprecedented;
I'm strongly suspect the Apache server has a few places where they
violate the HTTP spec for the sake of speed. I *know* Tomcat does.
> It will be interesting to see how the JDOM API evolves over time!
It's been a fun first day. :-)
-jh-
Re: JDOM - moving to jdom-interest@jdom.org
Posted by Mike Pogue <mp...@apache.org>.
If it doesn't do namespaces the way the XML spec says to do them, then
it's not really compliant with the XML spec either.
You can invent your own interpretation of namespaces, but then it's not really
XML at all, it's something else! :-)
It will be interesting to see how the JDOM API evolves over time!
Mike
Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
>
> [Note: I don't intend to get this going any much longer!]
>
> Brett McLaughlin wrote:
> >
> > I hope we can both agree to move this discussion to
> > jdom-interest@jdom.org from now on - I am sure lots of people are tired
> > of hearing us already ;-)
>
> Well, sorry, I disagree. I feel like I need to address the same people
> you decided to address in the first place.
>
> > I understand that DOM is, in a sense, your "baby,"
>
> Although I've been very much involved in its development, believe me, I
> really don't consider it as my baby. For what it's worth my actual baby
> looks way better than that! :-)
> This said, although the DOM is clearly not what I'd have done for
> myself, I claim that nobody could have done better with the same
> constraints.
>
> > Could it be possible that you are being a bit biased?
>
> I honestly don't think so. And, I actually believe there is room for
> other things than full XML compliant processors.
>
> > I suggest this because you seem to imply that
> > there is an either-or relationship between DOM and JDOM.
>
> Well, that's the way _you_ presented things. You came here to tell
> people how DOM and SAX are ridiculous and how JDOM would save them!
>
> > However, I want to be clear to you and others that we have not and do
> > not seek to conceal this; I was a bit put off by your implication that
> > we were being misleading
>
> Well, to avoid confusion in the future I advise you to make this clear
> in your Mission statement [1] then.
>
> Saying JDOM is "100% compliant with existing standards such as the
> Simple API for XML (SAX) and the Document Object Model (DOM)" is
> misleading, as people will surely think it is compliant with the DOM.
> This is contradictory to your previous statement:
>
> > JDOM is not intended to be a 100% accurate representation of XML.
>
> Again, if that's what you want to do, fine by me. But make it clear it
> is so.
>
> [1] http://jdom.org/mission/index.html
> --
> Arnaud Le Hors - IBM Cupertino, XML Technology Group
Re: JDOM - moving to jdom-interest@jdom.org
Posted by Mike Pogue <mp...@apache.org>.
If it doesn't do namespaces the way the XML spec says to do them, then
it's not really compliant with the XML spec either.
You can invent your own interpretation of namespaces, but then it's not really
XML at all, it's something else! :-)
It will be interesting to see how the JDOM API evolves over time!
Mike
Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
>
> [Note: I don't intend to get this going any much longer!]
>
> Brett McLaughlin wrote:
> >
> > I hope we can both agree to move this discussion to
> > jdom-interest@jdom.org from now on - I am sure lots of people are tired
> > of hearing us already ;-)
>
> Well, sorry, I disagree. I feel like I need to address the same people
> you decided to address in the first place.
>
> > I understand that DOM is, in a sense, your "baby,"
>
> Although I've been very much involved in its development, believe me, I
> really don't consider it as my baby. For what it's worth my actual baby
> looks way better than that! :-)
> This said, although the DOM is clearly not what I'd have done for
> myself, I claim that nobody could have done better with the same
> constraints.
>
> > Could it be possible that you are being a bit biased?
>
> I honestly don't think so. And, I actually believe there is room for
> other things than full XML compliant processors.
>
> > I suggest this because you seem to imply that
> > there is an either-or relationship between DOM and JDOM.
>
> Well, that's the way _you_ presented things. You came here to tell
> people how DOM and SAX are ridiculous and how JDOM would save them!
>
> > However, I want to be clear to you and others that we have not and do
> > not seek to conceal this; I was a bit put off by your implication that
> > we were being misleading
>
> Well, to avoid confusion in the future I advise you to make this clear
> in your Mission statement [1] then.
>
> Saying JDOM is "100% compliant with existing standards such as the
> Simple API for XML (SAX) and the Document Object Model (DOM)" is
> misleading, as people will surely think it is compliant with the DOM.
> This is contradictory to your previous statement:
>
> > JDOM is not intended to be a 100% accurate representation of XML.
>
> Again, if that's what you want to do, fine by me. But make it clear it
> is so.
>
> [1] http://jdom.org/mission/index.html
> --
> Arnaud Le Hors - IBM Cupertino, XML Technology Group
Re: JDOM - moving to jdom-interest@jdom.org
Posted by Mike Pogue <mp...@apache.org>.
If it doesn't do namespaces the way the XML spec says to do them, then
it's not really compliant with the XML spec either.
You can invent your own interpretation of namespaces, but then it's not really
XML at all, it's something else! :-)
It will be interesting to see how the JDOM API evolves over time!
Mike
Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
>
> [Note: I don't intend to get this going any much longer!]
>
> Brett McLaughlin wrote:
> >
> > I hope we can both agree to move this discussion to
> > jdom-interest@jdom.org from now on - I am sure lots of people are tired
> > of hearing us already ;-)
>
> Well, sorry, I disagree. I feel like I need to address the same people
> you decided to address in the first place.
>
> > I understand that DOM is, in a sense, your "baby,"
>
> Although I've been very much involved in its development, believe me, I
> really don't consider it as my baby. For what it's worth my actual baby
> looks way better than that! :-)
> This said, although the DOM is clearly not what I'd have done for
> myself, I claim that nobody could have done better with the same
> constraints.
>
> > Could it be possible that you are being a bit biased?
>
> I honestly don't think so. And, I actually believe there is room for
> other things than full XML compliant processors.
>
> > I suggest this because you seem to imply that
> > there is an either-or relationship between DOM and JDOM.
>
> Well, that's the way _you_ presented things. You came here to tell
> people how DOM and SAX are ridiculous and how JDOM would save them!
>
> > However, I want to be clear to you and others that we have not and do
> > not seek to conceal this; I was a bit put off by your implication that
> > we were being misleading
>
> Well, to avoid confusion in the future I advise you to make this clear
> in your Mission statement [1] then.
>
> Saying JDOM is "100% compliant with existing standards such as the
> Simple API for XML (SAX) and the Document Object Model (DOM)" is
> misleading, as people will surely think it is compliant with the DOM.
> This is contradictory to your previous statement:
>
> > JDOM is not intended to be a 100% accurate representation of XML.
>
> Again, if that's what you want to do, fine by me. But make it clear it
> is so.
>
> [1] http://jdom.org/mission/index.html
> --
> Arnaud Le Hors - IBM Cupertino, XML Technology Group
Re: JDOM - moving to jdom-interest@jdom.org
Posted by Mike Pogue <mp...@apache.org>.
If it doesn't do namespaces the way the XML spec says to do them, then
it's not really compliant with the XML spec either.
You can invent your own interpretation of namespaces, but then it's not really
XML at all, it's something else! :-)
It will be interesting to see how the JDOM API evolves over time!
Mike
Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
>
> [Note: I don't intend to get this going any much longer!]
>
> Brett McLaughlin wrote:
> >
> > I hope we can both agree to move this discussion to
> > jdom-interest@jdom.org from now on - I am sure lots of people are tired
> > of hearing us already ;-)
>
> Well, sorry, I disagree. I feel like I need to address the same people
> you decided to address in the first place.
>
> > I understand that DOM is, in a sense, your "baby,"
>
> Although I've been very much involved in its development, believe me, I
> really don't consider it as my baby. For what it's worth my actual baby
> looks way better than that! :-)
> This said, although the DOM is clearly not what I'd have done for
> myself, I claim that nobody could have done better with the same
> constraints.
>
> > Could it be possible that you are being a bit biased?
>
> I honestly don't think so. And, I actually believe there is room for
> other things than full XML compliant processors.
>
> > I suggest this because you seem to imply that
> > there is an either-or relationship between DOM and JDOM.
>
> Well, that's the way _you_ presented things. You came here to tell
> people how DOM and SAX are ridiculous and how JDOM would save them!
>
> > However, I want to be clear to you and others that we have not and do
> > not seek to conceal this; I was a bit put off by your implication that
> > we were being misleading
>
> Well, to avoid confusion in the future I advise you to make this clear
> in your Mission statement [1] then.
>
> Saying JDOM is "100% compliant with existing standards such as the
> Simple API for XML (SAX) and the Document Object Model (DOM)" is
> misleading, as people will surely think it is compliant with the DOM.
> This is contradictory to your previous statement:
>
> > JDOM is not intended to be a 100% accurate representation of XML.
>
> Again, if that's what you want to do, fine by me. But make it clear it
> is so.
>
> [1] http://jdom.org/mission/index.html
> --
> Arnaud Le Hors - IBM Cupertino, XML Technology Group
Re: JDOM - moving to jdom-interest@jdom.org
Posted by Arnaud Le Hors <le...@us.ibm.com>.
[Note: I don't intend to get this going any much longer!]
Brett McLaughlin wrote:
>
> I hope we can both agree to move this discussion to
> jdom-interest@jdom.org from now on - I am sure lots of people are tired
> of hearing us already ;-)
Well, sorry, I disagree. I feel like I need to address the same people
you decided to address in the first place.
> I understand that DOM is, in a sense, your "baby,"
Although I've been very much involved in its development, believe me, I
really don't consider it as my baby. For what it's worth my actual baby
looks way better than that! :-)
This said, although the DOM is clearly not what I'd have done for
myself, I claim that nobody could have done better with the same
constraints.
> Could it be possible that you are being a bit biased?
I honestly don't think so. And, I actually believe there is room for
other things than full XML compliant processors.
> I suggest this because you seem to imply that
> there is an either-or relationship between DOM and JDOM.
Well, that's the way _you_ presented things. You came here to tell
people how DOM and SAX are ridiculous and how JDOM would save them!
> However, I want to be clear to you and others that we have not and do
> not seek to conceal this; I was a bit put off by your implication that
> we were being misleading
Well, to avoid confusion in the future I advise you to make this clear
in your Mission statement [1] then.
Saying JDOM is "100% compliant with existing standards such as the
Simple API for XML (SAX) and the Document Object Model (DOM)" is
misleading, as people will surely think it is compliant with the DOM.
This is contradictory to your previous statement:
> JDOM is not intended to be a 100% accurate representation of XML.
Again, if that's what you want to do, fine by me. But make it clear it
is so.
[1] http://jdom.org/mission/index.html
--
Arnaud Le Hors - IBM Cupertino, XML Technology Group
Re: JDOM - moving to jdom-interest@jdom.org
Posted by Arnaud Le Hors <le...@us.ibm.com>.
[Note: I don't intend to get this going any much longer!]
Brett McLaughlin wrote:
>
> I hope we can both agree to move this discussion to
> jdom-interest@jdom.org from now on - I am sure lots of people are tired
> of hearing us already ;-)
Well, sorry, I disagree. I feel like I need to address the same people
you decided to address in the first place.
> I understand that DOM is, in a sense, your "baby,"
Although I've been very much involved in its development, believe me, I
really don't consider it as my baby. For what it's worth my actual baby
looks way better than that! :-)
This said, although the DOM is clearly not what I'd have done for
myself, I claim that nobody could have done better with the same
constraints.
> Could it be possible that you are being a bit biased?
I honestly don't think so. And, I actually believe there is room for
other things than full XML compliant processors.
> I suggest this because you seem to imply that
> there is an either-or relationship between DOM and JDOM.
Well, that's the way _you_ presented things. You came here to tell
people how DOM and SAX are ridiculous and how JDOM would save them!
> However, I want to be clear to you and others that we have not and do
> not seek to conceal this; I was a bit put off by your implication that
> we were being misleading
Well, to avoid confusion in the future I advise you to make this clear
in your Mission statement [1] then.
Saying JDOM is "100% compliant with existing standards such as the
Simple API for XML (SAX) and the Document Object Model (DOM)" is
misleading, as people will surely think it is compliant with the DOM.
This is contradictory to your previous statement:
> JDOM is not intended to be a 100% accurate representation of XML.
Again, if that's what you want to do, fine by me. But make it clear it
is so.
[1] http://jdom.org/mission/index.html
--
Arnaud Le Hors - IBM Cupertino, XML Technology Group
Re: JDOM - moving to jdom-interest@jdom.org
Posted by Arnaud Le Hors <le...@us.ibm.com>.
[Note: I don't intend to get this going any much longer!]
Brett McLaughlin wrote:
>
> I hope we can both agree to move this discussion to
> jdom-interest@jdom.org from now on - I am sure lots of people are tired
> of hearing us already ;-)
Well, sorry, I disagree. I feel like I need to address the same people
you decided to address in the first place.
> I understand that DOM is, in a sense, your "baby,"
Although I've been very much involved in its development, believe me, I
really don't consider it as my baby. For what it's worth my actual baby
looks way better than that! :-)
This said, although the DOM is clearly not what I'd have done for
myself, I claim that nobody could have done better with the same
constraints.
> Could it be possible that you are being a bit biased?
I honestly don't think so. And, I actually believe there is room for
other things than full XML compliant processors.
> I suggest this because you seem to imply that
> there is an either-or relationship between DOM and JDOM.
Well, that's the way _you_ presented things. You came here to tell
people how DOM and SAX are ridiculous and how JDOM would save them!
> However, I want to be clear to you and others that we have not and do
> not seek to conceal this; I was a bit put off by your implication that
> we were being misleading
Well, to avoid confusion in the future I advise you to make this clear
in your Mission statement [1] then.
Saying JDOM is "100% compliant with existing standards such as the
Simple API for XML (SAX) and the Document Object Model (DOM)" is
misleading, as people will surely think it is compliant with the DOM.
This is contradictory to your previous statement:
> JDOM is not intended to be a 100% accurate representation of XML.
Again, if that's what you want to do, fine by me. But make it clear it
is so.
[1] http://jdom.org/mission/index.html
--
Arnaud Le Hors - IBM Cupertino, XML Technology Group
Re: JDOM - moving to jdom-interest@jdom.org
Posted by Arnaud Le Hors <le...@us.ibm.com>.
[Note: I don't intend to get this going any much longer!]
Brett McLaughlin wrote:
>
> I hope we can both agree to move this discussion to
> jdom-interest@jdom.org from now on - I am sure lots of people are tired
> of hearing us already ;-)
Well, sorry, I disagree. I feel like I need to address the same people
you decided to address in the first place.
> I understand that DOM is, in a sense, your "baby,"
Although I've been very much involved in its development, believe me, I
really don't consider it as my baby. For what it's worth my actual baby
looks way better than that! :-)
This said, although the DOM is clearly not what I'd have done for
myself, I claim that nobody could have done better with the same
constraints.
> Could it be possible that you are being a bit biased?
I honestly don't think so. And, I actually believe there is room for
other things than full XML compliant processors.
> I suggest this because you seem to imply that
> there is an either-or relationship between DOM and JDOM.
Well, that's the way _you_ presented things. You came here to tell
people how DOM and SAX are ridiculous and how JDOM would save them!
> However, I want to be clear to you and others that we have not and do
> not seek to conceal this; I was a bit put off by your implication that
> we were being misleading
Well, to avoid confusion in the future I advise you to make this clear
in your Mission statement [1] then.
Saying JDOM is "100% compliant with existing standards such as the
Simple API for XML (SAX) and the Document Object Model (DOM)" is
misleading, as people will surely think it is compliant with the DOM.
This is contradictory to your previous statement:
> JDOM is not intended to be a 100% accurate representation of XML.
Again, if that's what you want to do, fine by me. But make it clear it
is so.
[1] http://jdom.org/mission/index.html
--
Arnaud Le Hors - IBM Cupertino, XML Technology Group